Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 20STCV17339, Date: 2024-10-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 20STCV17339, Date: 2024-10-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17339 Hearing Date: October 22, 2024 Dept: C

Jehan Zeb Mir vs Surati Cash & Carry, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV17339

Hearing Date: October 22, 2024 @ 10:30 a.m.

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jehan Zeb Mir, M.D.’s Motion to Correct Clerical Error is DENIED.

Clerk to give notice.

In the First Amended Complaint filed on January 24, 2022, Plaintiff Jehan Zeb Mir, M.D. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on May 27, 2018, as he was leaving a grocery store operated by Defendant Surati Cash & Carry Grocery (“Defendant”), he tripped and fell, suffering injuries to his left wrist which required medical care.

The procedural history of this case is set forth in detail in Judge Michelle Court’s June 1, 2023 order denying Plaintiff’s “Notice & Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Reassignment of the Case” filed in February 2023. (6/1/23 Minute Order.)

In this motion, Plaintiff seeks to correct a notation in the Court’s online register of actions which indicates that the disposition of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is “Court Ordered Dismissal – Other (Other) – 9/13/22”. This is in reference to Judge Elaine Lu’s September 13, 2022 order dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (9/13/22 Minute Order.)

No opposition filed as of October 18, 2024.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, “[t]he court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (CCP §473(d).) Ministerial acts that were performed inadvertently by a court clerk are clerical errors in nature and within the Court’s power to correct at any time. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)

Here, Plaintiff argues that the register of actions “makes no mention of the motion for reconsideration of the 9/13/2022 order dismissing complaint without prejudice, the peremptory challenge to Judge Lu. and her December 7, 2022, Order accepting peremptory challenge voiding dismissal and ordering reassignment to another judge under CCP: § 170.6(a)(4).” (Motion, p. 11:1-4 (punctuation in original).)

It appears Plaintiff is referring to an order made by Judge Lu on January 18, 2023. In that order, Judge Lu found that Plaintiff’s December 7, 2022 peremptory challenge against her was timely as to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of Judge Cowan’s August 22, 2022 order. (1/18/23 Minute Order.) That motion was reassigned to Judge Michelle Court. However, Judge Lu’s January 18, 2023 order DENIED Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of her own September 13, 2022 Order in civil cases 21STCV27787, 21NWCV00424, 21STCV03643, and 20STCV17339. (Ibid.) As such, Judge Lu’s September 13, 2022 order dismissing the First Amended Complaint without prejudice remains in effect, and there is no error in the Court's online register of actions indicating the disposition of this matter.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Clerical Error is DENIED.